President Trump’s punitive tariffs on China lead to $30 billion in new farm bailouts, with no end in sight for these growing subsidies. Will Congress expand funding when the agriculture subsidies hit the legal ceiling this fall? What’s the end game for the president’s trade negotiations? Is it better to have American farmers dependent upon China or upon U.S. taxpayers? Has massive borrowing made the U.S. the richest/poorest country in the world?
Categories
Trump’s China Tariffs Spawn $30 Billion in New U.S. Farm Bailouts: No End in Sight
President Trump’s punitive tariffs on China lead to $30 billion in new farm bailouts, with no end in sight for these growing subsidies. Will Congress expand funding when the agriculture subsidies hit the legal ceiling this fall? What’s the end game for the president’s trade negotiations? Is it better to have American farmers dependent upon China or upon U.S. taxpayers? Has massive borrowing made the U.S. the richest/poorest country in the world?
7 replies on “Trump’s China Tariffs Spawn $30 Billion in New U.S. Farm Bailouts: No End in Sight”
More like king of farm baleouts.
Scott’s argument that there is a “slow but inexorable movement of China toward a more free market system” of trade and commerce and capitalism is ACCURATE! But, he said NOTHING about a move away from totalitarianism! Totalitarianism and capitalism are NOT mutually exclusive! China has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that totalitarianism can coexist with capitalism. The Chicoms have successfully integrated capitalist ideas under the imprint of a boot of a totalitarian dictatorship. Communists dictators have proven that they can control people like cattle with a modicum of controlled liberty. The problem first started when Nixon visited China and opened the doors for globalists to make deals with a communist dictatorship to use a slavish work force of impoverished, domesticated, docile, silent, obedient, consenting chattel.
China’s “cheating” was enabled by a globalist cartel opened by Nixon in the 70s. This cartel, brokered by criminals in D.C., gave China the ability to economically rape our economy by making it cheaper for our industries to move overseas, powered by a cheap labor force. This allowed two generations of Americans to “benefit greatly” by the Chicoms ready to sell America the noose with which to hang itself. And the delusional criminals in D.C. were put there by the delusional constituents who voted for them.
It’s the reality of the old saw: Borrow $1,000 and the bank owns you. Borrow $1,000,000 and you own the bank.
Grew up on a Dairy/Poultry farm, still live there. It’s a great way to grow up, but a very hard way to make a living. Some 20 years ago we had to make a decision, get big, or get out.
Bills/Mortgage were finally paid off, decided to get a life, and get out. Since then I’ve worked for an Ag dealership (Deere), and have watched the slow extinction of the “Family Farm”. We have very few of them left, everything’s corporate, merging/growing, and, make no mistake, these operations are very adept at playing all the subsidy/tax/green credits games available through the government. I don’t begrudge them doing that, but in the long term, it seems counter productive to a self sustaining business model. We have the great fortune to spend a lower percentage of disposable income on food than anywhere else in the world. A country where our greatest health concern is obesity. Victims of their own success. You can do everything right and still lose at weather’s whim.
I see the current situation as a step toward a better future for all concerned. In the long term, let the market work, as supply comes more in line with demand, absent diminishing subsidies, commodities prices would rise, but impact on the consumer should be moderated by the lessening tax burden being transferred to this market sector by the infamous “Farm Bills”. In the short term, this assistance can keep a struggling sector viable while we correct decades old issues with trading “partners”, and move ahead with a strong self sustaining agricultural economy built in the real world, and more than capable of supplying the demands of an expanding population. Perfect, no, maybe a step in the right direction.
As for me. We still own the land, Wages for generations of work, and part of my soul. For the time being we rent the cropland out, it pays the taxes and a bit more. In time, retirement may find me here full time once again, though I’ll probably let someone else do the hard work this time.
Off Topic: (sort of). Makes me want to ask all these “national popular vote” morons seeking to subvert or eliminate the Electoral College, relegating the heartland to political irrelevance — “What are you having for dinner?”
People don’t seem to know that before the income tax, tariffs were the main source of the national government’s income. Are the tariffs gathered from China’s tariffs greater, less or equal to the support farmers are getting? It would be interesting to know. Also the tariffs are paid by people or businesses buying from China voluntarily unless they have no choice. Of course, those costs may be passed on.
Exactly. I think it quite likely a significant portion of the tariffs are collected then essentially get handed to the impacted farmers.
A significant fraction of my income comes from the family farm left to myself and my brother. It is a grain farm and is very productive of corn, soybeans, and wheat. Our storage capacity is sufficient to retain the bulk of what we produce so that we can choose when to sell it. We then sell that grain on the open market at market prices.
I would gladly trade the price support payments for not having all the mother-may-I restrictions placed upon the farm. I have long been of that opinion. I believe a true open market without the government thumb on the scales is the best long run market for everyone.
However, due to the gross mismanagement of China trade relations, by ALL previous administrations, both China and our government have placed a huge burden on a once free market and has distorted it all out of proportion. Everyone except the ruling elite have had to pay the price in both the US and China.
If the trade situation with China is to be corrected, we have no good choices. It is only bad or worse choices. It may be that the current bad situation with China is the best possible bad choice. If so, then protecting the American farmer from a portion of the side effects of that bad choice seems reasonable in the short run. Only time will tell.